Posted
by
Zonk
on Sunday January 07, 2007 @03:22PM
from the general-motors-not-game-master dept.

WindBourne writes "While Ford wants to simply offer cosmetic changes to automobiles interiors and exteriors, General Motors has finally gotten the message about electric autos. They are about to introduce the Chevy Volt, a plug-in hybrid which gets 40 Miles on a charge, but has a generator that can keep the auto going up to 640 miles range. From a styling POV, it is not a tesla, but it is also not a focus or a pinto. From the Rocky article: 'GM did not release cost estimates but said they recognize the Volt's price will have to be competitive. Company Vice Chairman Robert Lutz said in a statement that more than half of Americans live less than 20 miles from their workplace and could go to work and back on a single charge.'"

Also coming from GM in model year 2008 is the full hybrid GMT900 [wikipedia.org] truck platform [1 [auto123.com], 2 [automobilemag.com], . This encompasses the Chevy Tahoe and Suburban, the GMC Yukon and Yukon XL, and the Cadillac Escalade and Escalade ESV, among others. The hybrid uses the GM/DaimlerChrysler Advanced Hybrid System 2 [wikipedia.org].

The hybrids will feature:

- 5.3L FlexFuel Vortec V8 (able to run using E85 [wikipedia.org], a blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline)- Active Fuel Management (AFM)/Displacement on Demand (DOD), disabling cylinders as needed for cruising- Two 30kW electric motors inside of the same physical space as the normal automatic transmission- A continuously variable automatic transmission- Conventional 110VAC power outlets on board- Hybrid system derived from the advanced system on already in use on GM's Allison transit buses

This advanced hybrid system, while not plug-in, will be offered on all model year 2008 GM full size SUVs, as well as pickups and fleet vehicles. The expected fuel economy gain is 30% over today's figures on the gasoline/FlexFuel-only AFM variant, approaching 30mpg for city driving. That's a damned good improvement. And when used with FlexFuel, they're using less fossil fuels - even including the fully burdened fossil fuel costs of ethanol - than Prius and Civic hybrid drivers, in addition to contributing to lower overall greenhouse gas emissions. As the process efficiency increases over the next few years, these numbers will improve.

Whether or not one likes or dislikes SUVs, or thinks people should be able to be told what types of vehicles they should or shouldn't be driving, or think subjective judgments can be simplistically made about what other people "need" or don't need, it's still an excellent step forward. While the Volt is very interesting (conspiracy theorists: think of some way the Volt is really still a GM plot to "keep electric vehicles down" or to assist big oil) and using centralized power generation and leveraging the existing electric grid and production capacity is a necessary step to the future, the full hybrid SUVs will be one of the big things that people buy in the short term, not to mention being one of the major things - if not the thing - that may make or break GM in the next decade.

Where are the turbine/electric hybrids? Why are we still dealing with pistons?

You can't put an effective muffler on a turbine engine. Most drivers would be unwilling to wear hearing protection to drive to their local Safeway. Plus, the vehicle would violate many city's noise ordinances.

It's not like the hybrid concept is really all that new. Diesel locomotives have been "hybrids" for decades. So has "super-sized" construction equipment, like those gigantic dump trucks. They all use piston engines. If turbines were practical in a vehicle, they'd already be in use.

I'm not sure what you mean by "You can't put an effective muffler on a turbine engine." The turbine Chryslers back in the 60s had a waste-heat collection system on them that effectively muffled the turbine. In fact, the complaint from the testers was actually that they sounded like a vacuum cleaner.

I am not claiming that turbines would be good in a family car, just that you can muffle the sound.

They don't have to. The idea is you have a turbine that can be switched on or off to charge the batteries. This turbine is in no way hooked to the drive train. The car then runs purly in electrical mode all the time. The turbine can be run at peak efficiency.

And yes running all electric this way is actually very efficient, several modders have disconnected the drive train on their prius and showed gas miliage improvements.

Something the parent poster may have been getting at is that turbines tend to be rather loud at speed, have to dump a lot of waste heat, and having parts spinning around a thousand times per second in your car may prove to be a safety issue. That's not to say that a workable turbine design couldn't be done, just that there are some formidable engineering challenges to be met.

These aren't great solutions anyway. We're at a technological crossing; we have great electrical motors, but we're still stuck with shitty storage (batteries.)

When ultra-capacitors become widely available, batteries will go away, cars will be able to store enough energy to have 300-400 mile ranges, and the only reason to have a combustion engine in the car will be for emergency power (when you run out of electrons, which mostly, you won't.)

and having parts spinning around a thousand times per second in your car may prove to be a safety issue

Not really. They are very lightweight, and therefore will have little inertia. Turbochargers spin between 60,000rpm and 100,000RPM and have a strong, long, proven track record (102 years) and the only time they become unreliable is when there is a lack of lubrication, usually from piss-poor maintenance (e.g., an owner gets an oil change once every 100,000 miles whether it's needed or not), or from running the car at FULL boost, then immediately shutting down (e.g., your average teenager pulling into a mall parking lot), without letting it idle down and cool off.

Turbine generators will be far less prone to the latter. There is no cure for poor maintenance, except that the turbine housings will be strong enough to protect against shattering during a catastrophic failure. Heck, even most turbines on jet aircraft are built to contain their massive, extremely high-speed turbines, and ditto for power plants with their even more massive gas turbine engines which are run at full speed at nearly 100% duty cycle.

And waste heat? They may run at a hotter temperature, but they use far less fuel than a conventional engine. There will probably less total heat output. The fix to lower the temperature of the exhaust? Mix the exhaust with ambient air (like the stealth bombers do to reduce their heat signatures), or reclaim the heat for other purposes, such as thermocouples or sterling engines to further increase efficiency, or during cold weather, heat exchangers for heating the vehicle, rather than relying on electric coils for heat.

Well, it's not thousands of revs per SECOND, it's usually around 10,000 RPM (minute).

But the makeup of a turbine is much different than an typical internal combustion engine. (My dad has worked on both for over 30 years in the aircraft industry as an Aircraft Maintenance Engineer).

A turbine does NOT do well with constantly starting up and shutting down, it will work much better if it's just turned on and left to run forever.

If a turbine "blows up", you better run for cover. If a normal piston engine blows ub, meh, no big deal... it's all pretty well contained in that monstrous engine block and is not generally such a big deal... just expensive.

Tolerances on a turbine are much, much tighter than the piston engine. Maintenance is a MUST.

And yes, turbines are LOUD, and smelly, and generate a lot of heat, and won't do well on current pump gas.

Turbines are not yet ready for the general masses, only a select few, IMO.

The reason that turbines are used in airlines has NOTHING to do with maintenance... it's all about power produced, power to weight ratios, and fuel efficiency. Go take a look at the maintenance protocols for a turbine vs. piston powerplants and then get back to me.

And explain to me again why it is that most private / pleasure aircraft are powered by piston engines? Oh yeah... they're much more complex and actually DO require more maintenance. And are much more expensive.

Don't get me wrong, turbines are WAY better from a technical perspective, but realistically are not appropriate for automobiles due to their cost, complexity, fuel requirements (they DON'T run on pump gas), noise, heat generation, etc.

And exactly WHERE are you getting this whole "trouble-free" stuff from? I'm getting it from a guy who's worked on both engines for more than 30 years as a bush pilot and an AME working on everything from Beavers to Twin Otters to Turbo Beavers to Caravans to Bell Jet Rangers and LongHorns.

You're talking about 2 different operational modes... car travel vs. airline travel.A jet's turbine will typically run at a constant RPM for long periods of time, whereas a car will be variable RPM and be used for (generally) more frequent, shorter duration trips. If you compare the maintenance required/performed on long-haul (transatlantic?) flights versus short-hop commuter planes (Dash 8's, etc), the transatlantic flights usually require less maintenance. Maintenance is not just about engine time, it's

Point taken.I shouldn't have said the decision has "nothing" to do with maintenance, as it's a part of the big picture.

But forgetting maintenance, it's much more efficient and cost effective to run turbines at altitude. Throwing maintenance factors into the equations and it's still a better ROI to run turbines than pistons.

The first naval turbines had the same issues. Running the propellers at turbine speedcavitated the blades, running the turbine slow meant poor efficiency. There was anattempt at a fluid coupling ( Foettinger or something like that in Germany ). BetweenWWI and WWII, at least the Americans experimented with Turbine electric drives forships. ( Lexington or Saratoga ( CV2 && 3 ) powered part of a city in the 1930's because it hadthe generating capacity. ).

"The expected fuel economy gain is 30% over today's figures on the gasoline/FlexFuel-only AFM variant, approaching 30mpg for city driving. That's a damned good improvement. And when used with FlexFuel, they're using less fossil fuels - even including the fully burdened fossil fuel costs of ethanol - than Prius and Civic hybrid drivers, in addition to contributing to lower overall greenhouse gas emissions."

Sure you could, in principle. In practice the personal car is close enough to a holy cow in American politics that any suggestions of in any way limiting the God-Given-Rigth to drive 3MPG super-SUVs alone to work is akin to political suicide.

In much of Europe we've got this kind of thing for a long while already. For example, in Norway you pay taxes on a new vehicle according to weigth, engine-volume and horsepower (though it's recently been suggested to replace this with CO2-emmision/km). In Germany you

You sound like you're saying that once fuel costs more than nothing, the price doesn't matter. That sounds absurd on its surface, but it's the only conclusion to be drawn from your insistence that a tax is unnecessary, since "incentives already exist." The simple fact is, the higher the tax on fuel, the greater the incentive for fuel efficiency.Since it's unlikely that you're actually trying to argue otherwise, then maybe you're arguing that the free market is already achieving optimal fuel usage patterns

Actually there is long term gain from this though. The people willing to spend extra money on these SUVs (and people are willing to spend a lot on SUVs). Will help support the development on these technologies. Realistically you simply are going to have to wait for the technology to mature before you see them in smaller cars more often. There are many rumors that the Prius actually cost more to produce than it sells for. You won't find many manufactures willing to do this atleast not in the more popular

Don't forget there's also the question of 'Who has the most to gain?'. If you think about it a moment, you realize that SUVs, being larger vehicles than a car, stand to save a larger amount of gasoline than a small car. Going from 12mpg to 30 mpg will save more gasoline than 30 to 40 mpg. The larger vehicle also has more space to put the necessary equipment because many of the parts will be about the same size whether it's in a Honda civic or Ford Escape. Oh, and electric motors tend to be more efficient the larger they are, so you can gain a few percentage points there. Add in the systems end up costing less as a percentage of the cost of the vehicle as a whole, and I wonder why they didn't come out with hybrid SUVs sooner.

Basically, it actually makes more sense to put hybrid systems into SUV's than compact cars. It's part of the reason that locomotives have been effectivly hybrids for years(major reason is the elimination of the transmission, of course).

Actually, stop and go is the best case for hybrids. Reciprocating engines are most efficient when they can be designed to work at fixed rpm. Starting from a stop in your car or diesel truck is very inefficient. It is much more efficient to use an electric motor for the initial start. Electric motors make max torque at 0 rpm and love low-speed operation.

When I drove transit in Seattle, I was lucky enough to drive their new New Flyer diesel-electric hybrid [metrokc.gov] articulated buses. Because the big diesel didn't have to yank the bus away from a start, the buses were more fuel-efficient and much, much quieter. The lack of transmission made them unbelievably smooth. They were also the quickest transit buses I've ever driven despite being heavy 60-footers. The dynamic brakes made for a low-effort brake pedal, very smooth stops, and almost no brake wear. A full hybrid powertrain, while expensive, is absolutely ideal for urban transit buses -- which see more stop-and-go operation than any other vehicles. Fast, quiet, smooth, and fuel-efficient.

Umm, no. Locomotives don't do any stop & go driving, don't have a large battery pack, can't go an inch without the diesel engine running, etc.

While lacking a battery pack, a locomotive is still 'hybrid' in that it has both a diesel engine and electric motors. There are car type hybrids out there right now that can't go an inch without the engine running, with the battery system only providing a power boost, allowing a smaller engine to be used for the performance. Even then, I read an article about 4

actually GE has advertised their testing of adding a train car clear full of batteries, to locomotives. They still have varying speedlimits, so they slow and speed-up quite a bit. also whenever they go over hills, etc they brake then accell in close succession

That, and the ability to hook multiple locomotives together for more power, are the ONLY reasons, AFAIK.

Actually the best benefits (allthough it is tranny related) is the high precision control, IE every wheel on the train is powered, and any-slip o

I find it interesting that so many people in this kind of discussion ignore customer preferences. We are not East Germany, whose government said, effectively, "Drive this Trabant or nothing!" We are America. We give people choices. And, I might add, even our biggest SUVs are cleaner than the Trabant was. A LOT cleaner.

So the problem is that most people - at least most Americans - like big, heavy cars and trucks better than small and light cars and trucks.

Many will buy what they want even if it gets 7mpg.

If technology can take a car that goes 7mpg and make it go 27 mpg, that's an enormous win - much more so than increasing an econobox from 30 to 40mpg.

I don't think there's anything wrong with giving people what they want. In fact, I think it's a big virtue of the USA that we do.

I don't like big SUVs myself - my car is the big, heavy Mercedes-Benz S-Class, that flies and gets about 20mpg in my hands. I'll probably drive something like that for the rest of my life, because I love driving that particular kind of car.

And you're not going to prevent me from doing that -- at least as long as we're still America. A hybrid S-Class would give me better acceleration and fuel economy. It would be cool. I'd buy it. And I would save fuel and money doing so.

(Although I might find the Tesla roadster hard to resist thanks to its audacity).

You might want to make sure you actually understand what he's saying before you go calling him an idiot. As it is, you're looking a wee bit silly yourself.His point was that it makes more sense to make SUV's hybrid because it'll make a bigger difference than if you make compact cars hybrid, and he's absolutely correct. The fact that the compact car will still be more fuel-efficient is irrelevant. The fact that my bicycle is still more efficient than your compact car is also irrelevant. What matters is t

"And not incidentally: we don't need to "tell" people what they "need" to drive. We can tax them based on the size and/or fuel-efficiency of their vehicle, and, like true conservatives, we'll "let the market work.""

Isn't governmental taxation and regulation interference in "the market"?

Perhaps you are not aware, but the main cost of driving is subsidized by the government.If your taxes did not pay for roads, but this was paid for by the drivers (perhaps by a gas use fee), then you probably pay something comparable to $10/gallon.

If we had pay the true cost of driving on an pay-per-use basis, trains and other mass transportation would become more attractive.

And perhaps other vehicles, like flying cars ?, could enter the market.

But when the government effectively only subsidizes one transportation system, you end up with an environment for a natural monopoly and the market stagnates.

For example, 100 years ago, there were electric cars, and Model-T's got 25 MPG.Look how far we have come.

...If your taxes did not pay for roads, but this was paid for by the drivers (perhaps by a gas use fee), then you probably pay something comparable to $10/gallon......Simply not true for most US states. In the US, gas and vehicle taxes are reserved for vehicle and transportation related uses, mostly roads. Virtually no general tax money is used for highways. In Europe, the motorists are one of their governments main cash cows and the taxes collected from gasoline and vehicle taxes get used for all governmen

......people should be free to live their lives the way they choose.......

That's great until one person's life style and wishes conflict with another's desires in any given area. Before there were governments and in the animal kingdom, the strongest or the one with the sharpest claws gets their way. Governments at least end to mitigate this problem somewhat by making rules and enforcing these evenly for most people most of the time.

Because motorcycles are utterly impractical for anything other than joy riding in nice weather?

You have a limited view of how motorcycles are used. Not everyone who has a motorcycle rides their shiny new Harley on weekends in the summer. Small displacement motorcycles (including scooters and auto-rickshaws) are used in hundreds of countries for daily transportation. Don't confuse "comfortable" with "practical".

I've been looking at a lot of motorcycles. The vast majority get only 25mph from what I have seen. This includes Hondas and Harleys.

I call bullshit.

I've been riding motorcycles for 12 years and I've never owned or personally seen a motorcycle that got worse than 35mpg. Most bikes for the US market get somewhere in the range of 40-45mpg. So, either you're doing a horrible job of reading motorcycle specs or you're some sort of incompetent big-oil astroturfer. Your assertion might be true if you limit your search to highly modified huge touring cruisers or racebikes driven by ham-fisted idiots, but even then...

(numbers are from the manufacturer's website, motorcycle.com, or my own personal experience).

All Harley Davidson Sportster 883's are rated 50-55mpg. There are a lot of models in there.Sportster 1200's models are rated 40-50mpg depending on the exact model.Evolution engine models are rated right around 40mpg, a smooth hand on the throttle will keep you around 43mpg (personal experience).Most of the Buell line up (highly modified Sportster 1200 engine) is rated around 45mpg.600cc Hondas will get better than 40mpg, up to 45mpg depending on how you ride (personal experience). This includes 600f4i, 600rr, and 599.The Honda Goldwing 1500 is rated at 42mpg. The one I personally know of routinely gets 45mpg. This is a huge luxury tourer.My wife's Honda Rebel 250 gets 60-65mpg depending on which roads she takes on her commute.The Suzuki DL-650 is rated at 55mpg and will get almost 60mpg (personal experience).Suzuki DL-1000 is rated at 45mpg.Suzuki Hayabusa 1300 is rated at 35mpg and is able to do 200+ mph off the showroom floor. This is the most ridiculously overpowered sportbike on the market.

You should also visit India or anywhere in southeast Asia, where the motorcycles are 80-150cc and the scooters are 50cc. Most of those motorcycles handily exceed 100mpg. The scooters approach 200mpg. In order to achieve these mileage numbers, keeping an average speed at or below 45km/h and shutting off the engine at stoplights becomes important.

The only motorcycle I've heard of that might do as badly as 25mpg is the Boss Hoss. But then they strapped a small-block chevy V8 into a motorcycle as some symbol of excess, so what do you expect.

Only two of three models that I have seen get 50mpg. I've heard this is due to the smaller engine being less efficient than that larger car engine.

Ummmm, yeah. That's why all of the new high-efficiency vehicles are using huge displacement V8's. Don't know what you're smoking, but (1) motorcycles get substantially better mileage than anything but non-diesel cars and (2) it's fundamentally due to the smaller quantity of air/fuel mixture burned per mile. Which directly equates to geared displacement. Small engines can be just as efficient per cc as large engines, and ultimately, having the smallest displacement ticking over per mile results in the highest efficiency.

The only actual efficency argument for cars and against motorcycles is that the aerodynamics of a well designed car can trounce the aerodynamics of the best designed motorcycles. So at high speeds, cars begin to catch up to bikes on the efficiency curve. However, for 99.9% of day-to-day driving, the speeds are low enough that the motorcycle mass advantage is much more important than the car's aerodynamic advantage (somewhere around 100-120mph a 600cc sportbike may have the same mileage as a sports car at the same speed). As a result of this reality, I spend about $4 a week on gasoline while being able to pull away from 95% of the cars on the road. My wife spends about $2.50 a week on gasoline and can pull away from 75% of the cars on the road.

Another thing that irritates me is that there is not enough attention paid to the rural population's transportation needs. The rural population tends to have less income, yet has to travel longer distances in order to do shopping, go to the doctor, etc. and often for work. They often need the benefits that a real SUV is supposed to offer, including 4WD, larger wheels, etc because driving conditions can get really bad.

The rural population can pay their own way. I'm sick of paying enormous tax subsidies to

Your shunning of the rural population is noted. I think you're being way too dismissive of their value to you as a suburban or urban person. Agricultural subsidies are ugly, but a necessity. While urban infrastructure is much more expensive per mile, there are many more miles of infrastructure in rural areas. However, rural infrastructure is necessary for getting agricultural products to the cities, and also for getting between cities.I can tell you that many rural people are tired of paying subsidies for b

Let's see... if all us rural folk move to the big city, will the corn, wheat, and (especially) the cattle and the hogs gonna just wander their way to your neighborhood supermarket? Is the coal going to march from Wyoming to those generating plants in the east and south, so you can run your air conditioning? Are the trees going to split themselves into nice 2x4s and just show up at the urban jobsite?

I daresay that in the event of a really severe energy shortage, those of us out here in "flyover country" wil

And when used with FlexFuel, [GM full size SUVs are] using less fossil fuels - even including the fully burdened fossil fuel costs of ethanol - than Prius and Civic hybrid drivers, in addition to contributing to lower overall greenhouse gas emissions.

I really doubt it. Why?
* Prius and Civic hybrids get 55 [fueleconomy.gov] and 50 [fueleconomy.gov] MPG combined, respectively. The 2007 Yukon XL 1500 2WD gets 15/21 gas, 12/16 ethanol [fueleconomy.gov]. The 2007 Suburban 1500 2WD gets 15/21 gas, 12/16 ethanol [fueleconomy.gov]. Even give 'em 30% gain and they're nowhere near Prius and Civic.
* As for the petroleum content of American made ethanol: given that petroleum is used all over the refining process (from fertilizer to transportation), and given that a gallon of gasoline has 124,000 BTU [doe.gov] of energy but the net gain in a gallon of ethanol is a mere 20,000 to 40,000 BTU [gm.com] you get to use 6 gallons of E100 for the fossil fuel cost of 3 to 5 gallons of E0 (gasoline). Let's use the 40,000 BTU number: by using ethanol you can use 4 gallons at the "carbon gasoline cost" of 3 gallons of gas.

So, lets do the math: 30% fuel efficiency gain on 15/21 (we'll pretend that we should be working off of their gasoline and not ethanol numbers) gets us to 19.5/27.3. But, don't forget about the "4 for the cost of 3" -- so the carbon release would be equivalent to a car that gets 26/36.4. Now, sure this is back of the envelope, but I've been really generous -- giving the full 30% on the gasoline numbers (not the ethanol numbers), and giving the very highest estimate for BTU increase.

We're still at 26/36.4 mpg for the GM SUVs vs 50 or 55 mpg for the Civic and Prius hybrids. You're still off by a factor of 2, sport.

I hope this isn't more GM vaporware. I hope this stuff works, and sells. I hope ethanol improvements increase that 40,000 BTU gain. I hope the 30% efficiency gains are just the beginning.

Don't know yet, but given that the 2007 North American International Auto Show [naias.com] is this week, we might be hearing more. And given that these will all be available for model year 2008, which will occur mid to late calendar year 2007, we'll have to hear something about price pretty soon. GM knows it has to be cost-competitive. And, frankly, buyers need to know that spending a little more up front will be better for everything from the environment, to fossil fuel foreign policy, to their pocketbooks. But even t

So how can Tesla, a startup company with little manufacturing and car experience relative to GM, build an electric car that can make it 200 miles on a charge, while GM can only build one that makes it 40? Come on GM, put a bigger Li-Ion battery in the thing and create a car that works for commuters.

Sure, the Volt is moving in the right direction, but it looks wacky and won't meet many people's expectations. Still, if it was under $25K, I'd consider one.

I think the tesla was built on a Lotus Esprit (or was it Elise?) chassis. Those are very small and light cars, at least in petrol form. There is a CNN article about this car [cnn.com] (which incidentally calls it a "concept") and the pictures suggest something rather large and heavy. I don't know if this apparent difference in size accounts for the difference in range.

So how can Tesla, a startup company with little manufacturing and car experience relative to GM, build an electric car that can make it 200 miles on a charge, while GM can only build one that makes it 40? Come on GM, put a bigger Li-Ion battery in the thing and create a car that works for commuters.

Keep in mind that the Tesla does not have to worry about lugging a heavy internal combustion engine around either. If you want to drive more than 200 miles in a Tesla, you have to carry around the portable char

If you want to drive more than 200 miles in a Tesla, you have to carry around the portable charge and recharge it for three hours

A small percentage of the miles I drive take place during a day in which I travel more than 200 miles. If the tesla were cheaper, I could have two cars: a cheap internal combustion car to make long trips, and a tesla to do most of my driving. We don't need one car to serve all purposes for all people.

Keep in mind that the Tesla does not have to worry about lugging a heavy internal combustion engine around either.

An I.C.E. is not heavy... I have a 2KW generator that probably weighs 20 pounds. It's a large engine, plus alternator, radiator, transmission, axle, fan, etc., which causes so much weight.

Throw a single-piston electric generator in the trunk of your Tesla motors vehicle, and it will, at the very least, extend the range significantly. With a more expensive, higher power generator, you could dr

Actually the range for the Volt is 600 miles, not 40 due to the generator. The build cost for that is more reasonable than 5x the batteries, and allows for longer trips. It looks like a smart idea. The electric portion of the car can be generic, while the generator could be gas, diesel, biodiesel, hydrogen or fuel cell. I doubt GM's plan is to sell the car for $100K

Going longer on batteries is nice, but not everyone would agree that going a big further per charge is worth it if it reduces the ability for actual long distance driving. Some people have resorted to pulling trailers with generators for "pure" electric cars for long trips, so this is a much tidier solution. A car only useful for short trips would work for some people, but one that can directly replace an existing car where you don't have to worry about where the next charging location is will have much greater appeal.

Is this actually true? I would like to ask Mr. Lutz for a cite or three to back this assertion.

It seems reasonable at first blush, after all, unless you just LOVE sitting in your car idling down the freeway for hours a day, you probably want to live somewhere close to work. The average distance from home to work in Los Angeles is 8.2 miles [ucla.edu] (pdf), which includes claims that this is "consistent" with census data (except that it looks like the Census doesn't report distance, they report travel time [census.gov]) and compares with other metropolitan areas. This [cwru.edu] (another pdf) says that the average first job for people going off welfare is 6.5 miles away. This PDF [trb.org] claims that work causes people to drive an average of 12 miles per day. This site [transact.org] says that over 1/3 of workers in the 100 largest cities drive more than 10 miles to work.

The reported cost of the batteries is $10,000 for a car slightly smaller than a Prius. I wonder what they will have to sacrifice to make a car that is price competitive with Toyota's and Honda's offerings. Regardless, I am rooting for them. It would be nice to see an American car company innovating in such a dramatic manner.

A car that can only go 40 miles on a charge is nearly useless. Oh, you can run the generator - great, but it pisses through fuel. A whole whopping 71bhp from its one litre engine at *fifty miles per gallon* - wow! Do you have really tiny gallons there, or really long miles, or both? Most European cars have electric window motors more powerful than that.

RTFA.
Gasoline motor drives electric generator which is what moves the car. This is NO different than how locomotives work today. All trains are moved with electric motors, each engine being essentially a large power generation station on wheels.
It's actually rather efficient.

You mean like Xbox, Xbox 360 and everything else that has Microsoft written on it that's not Windows and Office?

Making money by selling gas-hungry cars and trucks is over. Vehicule manufacturers can only sell low-cost, efficient, clean cars and trucks from now on. GM is willing to change, but Ford isn't. I'm betting GM has better chances of still being here in 10-15 years than Ford or Dodge.

...as long as your leasing department is large enough. But then again, GM is having the idiotic idea of selling off their only profitable, and quite profitable as it is, department for the sake of "jump-starting" the company again. Unfortunately, all I see is a horde of H4's on the horizon....

For the longest time I have been told that the myth of the electric car was that it was a more environmentaly sound automobile than a gasoline powered automobile; that with the comination of how much energy was wasted in charging the battery and with how most energy comes from coal, natural gas or oil power plants the electric car produced far more polution than a gasoline car. I don't know if this is true anymore ( there have been massive improvements in battery technology over the past couple of decades )

If that is sorted on pollution, then the scooter should be at the point where 'Mid Size' is. Scooters and mopeds do not use a lot of fuel, but they do not combust very well as well, and have no filtering whatsoever. They emit a lot of NOx and fine d

GM, just start building EV-1's again. Stop with this "always four years away" nonsense. Just get started. You already have a feasible, marketable car. Just start building it and marketing it.

The EV-1's were by all accounts practical, peppy, fun to drive, reliable, the lease terms were affordable, and when the leases expired the lessees wanted to buy them, and they had a waiting list a mile long of people who wanted them.

The R&D has already been amortized. What's this fixation with needing a 400-mile range? Sure, plenty of people do. Don't try to sell them an electric car. Sell electric cars to the people who don't. Duh. Sell convertibles to the people who want convertibles, sell trucks to the people who want trucks, and sell EV-1's to the people who want EV-1's.

Just get started. Get the things on the market. Get the charging stations in place. Sell cars with an 80-mile range this year, then two years from now bring out models with improved batteries and a 120-mile range, or whatever.

... to push the California power grid six feet under during the summer. This will guarantee year-round brownouts, blackouts, and other power problems. Of course, that means plenty of "repair work" for IT staff.

When they talk about electric/hybrid cars with more nuclear power plants nationwide, *then* we'll have a plan. Otherwise, it's trading one problem for another.

Rest assured, California is not the only state with barely enough power-generation capacity. This could be "just the ticket" to justify hugely higher electric rates nationwide. Has anyone quantified the "recharging load" on the grid? Many people would have to recharge at work during the day to make it back home in the evening. Not all recharging could occur at night. Don't get me wrong. I think it's the right direction. But, the whole system needs to be planned and made to happen. Not just the cars.

GM says in no uncertain terms that the batteries to make the Volt a viable car, do not in fact exist.No, you should disabuse yourselves of the fiction that Detroit has any interest in electric cars. They do it at all because of a wrinkle in the Federal CAFE law which allows them to factor in these experimental cars into their CAFE standards. This way they can continue to build more 11mpg land arks. In fact that's what Detroit is doing - they're building evermore large trucks and SUVs. Some, like Ford are le

Concept car this, concept car that, get back to us when it's about to roll off the production floor in maybe 2010 or 2012. The article also has this to say:

But the Volt is limited by battery technology and GM has no date for it to be available to the public....
GM officials stressed that development of the battery pack is critical to the concept vehicle reaching showrooms, and the technology likely won't be available until 2010 or 2012.

As has been stated many times over a plug-in car just offset the polution to our power generators...which are already overloaded.I think what we really need to ask ourselves is if we need a 300 hp beast when we go to the grocery store. Pistons that automatically shut down when not need. A solar panel that might get you a few miles on the way home by charging a battery during the day.

I was down in Dallas for work back in the summer. Everyone drove, but everyone also parked outdoors. The sun light was intense

Large, centralized power generation is usually more efficient than "mini generators".

Secondly, the main advantage of petroleum is energy density, while it is terrible when it comes to sustainability and environmental concerns. With centralized power generation you can make choices on other bases besides energy density, and focus more on the other factors.

Okay, sure, GM is making another electric car they'll cancel. Why the Ford bashing? The Escape hybrid was a HUGE step for a company that rarely re-designs drivetrain platforms. Just look at how little the mechanics of the Crown Victoria have changed, or the more than a decade long run of the 3.0L Vulcan (Taurus, etc...) engine.
Furthermore, it isn't like they are sitting on their hands. They've introduced several new models, some of which are finally starting to show the reliability Ford drivers deserve.
It's fine to tout GM's electric car experiment, but why jump on Ford for no reason?

I have been looking at several articles to see if GM followed the modern path of AC motors ala Toyota, and not the obsolete cumbersome DC motors of the past. ( Yes this includes computer controlled brushless DC systems ).

Toyota and ABB of Sweden really have taken the first step in the future of transportation making a 500 volt integrated Variable Frequency Drive ( VFD ) to an AC drive motor.

This 1st step was really only scratching the surface and in the future you will see 400hz and above AC motors where the VFD's DC bus is excited by batteries.

Tesla experimented with many frequencies and found 60hz right for the 1890's bearings and engineering technologies.

Jet aircraft starter motors are usually 400hz AC multi pole motors. These are very light and have tremendous torque.

As computer controls become faster in processing speed, and the IGBT transistors can be switched faster VFD's and AC motors of 400, 600, 1200hz will bring more power and lower weight than ever imagined.

The limiting factor is the processing speed of the VFD cpu's in order to do sensor less torque vector calculations, then fire off the IGBT transistors.

I hope that one of the major VFD makers will have some engineer playing games on a CELL based console and have the brilliant idea that this would solve the intense calculation requirements needed.

If Toshiba ( major VFD maker ) and Nintendo ever merge, this will be the beginning of the electric era and the sunset of the internal combustion time on earth.

Everything he has to say was fully debunked by the movie. He has nothing more than the tired old "waiting list" spin to offer.

GM's EV1 -- Who Killed Common Sense?

He is a complete and total idiot, spouting lots of completely factually incorrect assumptions. He doesn't xplain his methodology for the cost of ownership numbers he makes up on the spot, yet he accuses the documentary of playing fast and loose with the facts?

Larger, centralized electricity production is more efficient than having tons of little internal combustion engines running around. On top of that, it's much easier to control pollution at a power plant than it is on all those cars on the road. As I understand it electric cars themselves should be more efficient (fewer moving parts and such, in some designs they can do away with a transmission altogether). Also, we can burn less coal and gasoline, and process less uranium, if more of the power production systems move to renewable sources (solar, wind, hydro-electric).

On top of that, hydrogen is not an energy source. Hydrogen is an energy storage/transmission medium. You have to get hydrogen from something first, and at the moment, I think many producers of hydrogen get it from fossil fuels. So you'd end up with similar problems unless the grid switched to mostly renewable sources. However, I still think it's better than having all those individual little gasoline engines.

Also, we can burn less coal and gasoline, and process less uranium, if more of the power production systems move to renewable sources (solar, wind, hydro-electric)

I just saw someone on TV same the same thing and I wanted to mention that the best solution would to keep the nuclear power, but using a better process than is currently in use. Here is why we won't be able to switch entirely to those types you mentioned:

Hydro: well first off you need a large moving water source. In order to build a dam, you will be changing the ecosystem that is currently in place. You may need to divert the river, possibly greatly changing the ecosystem it supports currently. You will also be creating a large reservoir right in front of the dam.

Wind: Loud, ugly, possibly changing the climate and environment around them. Same problem as nuclear - no one wants them in sight

Solar: I like it. However, currently power output isn't enough. That might change in the future, but of course you will still need the sun to power these. Sorry, Seattle.

The future I would like to see still includes nuclear power; just with more modern processing and recycling. My wish is people who claim to be environmentalists, would simply do some research and then perhaps they wouldn't be so afraid of the technology.

There isn't one type of energy source that is the solution -- it is a little of everything. Small wind turbines that can be installed on top of buildings, on roofs, and in backyards will go a long way. Even if all it can do is cover the "base" electric need for most homes (the power a house needs when people are not home), this will be a major help. Solar cells on roofs and buildings will help too, more so now that the tech is starting to get better. Even if backyard generation could provide %15 of needed power, it would be a huge improvement. And most houses could stand to save a considerable amount by basic and cheap conservation. (New appliances, low power bulbs, better insulation, etc.) For large scale production, nuclear seems to be best of the worst. But in the future we need to think about how to get our power form as many sources as possible -- both on a large and micro scale.

> However, a lot of electricity is made by burning> coal, which is not exactly a clean process.Currently true. Although burning coal can be made relatively clean, it is extremely difficult to stop the CO2 emissions which are now thought to be the worst "pollutant".

However, keep in mind that as various fossil fuels disappear or grow exceedingly expensive, we will be forced to turn more and more to electricity. And there are many ways besides fossil fuels to generate electricity. Solar, wind, nuclear

The centralized power plant can be specially tuned to run at a constant speed with optimum efficiency, since the workload is very different from that faced by an automotive engine (e.g. stop/go traffic).

By running constantly, the centralized powerplant is able to avoid the emissions generated at engine startup, when the catalytic converter hasn't heated up yet

A central power plant is likely to be much better maintained than most car engines. That also goes for the emissions control equipment. Fluid leaks are more likely to be properly contained and addressed promptly.

The centralized power plant does not *have* to be driven by fossil fuels. Nuclear power is very viable. Localized solar panels may become an option too, as price / performance improves

Don't forget to consider the fuel used to truck gasoline to your local gas station, as well as the resulting emissions from that truck.

I think I'll stick with regular gas until they come up with something like a hydrogen powered car.And just where do you think the hydrogen is going to come from? Steam reforming from methane (a fossile fuel) or electrolysis which uses electricity.

Unfortunately, it's true for most of the rest of the western world - indeed, most of the rest of the world - as well.

Despite all the hydro in e.g. Canada & China, nuclear in e.g. the US & Europe, & natural gas in e.g. Africa & the subcontinent, burning coal is the primary source of electrical energy in the world today by a large margin.